DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 October 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 24 October 2025. Claims 1 and 11 were amended. Claims 4-5 and 14-15 were canceled. Claim 21 was newly added. Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “electronic device to for identifiers” in lines 20-21 of claim 1 (and similar location in claim 11)appears to be a typographical error of “electronic device for identifiers.” Appropriate correction is required.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-21 are considered to be free of prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free of prior art:
The closest prior art is understood to be the prior art of record. The Papakonstantinou reference discloses a system and method for using environmental information to detect if a user is currently experiencing a panic attack, or that a panic attack is impending, and then provides guidance for the user to address the panic attack. The Moturu reference teaches the use of location and movement data to detect these life event triggers that can contribute to the user experiencing an adverse psychological state. However, the prior art does not disclose or fairly teach a combination of elements that lead to the method described in independent claims 1 and 11, including at least that the “panic-disorder stages are detected using at least partially different types of information.” Therefore, the claims are considered to be free of prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-21 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 21 fall within the category of a machine. Claims 11-13 and 16-20 fall within the category of a process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-21 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
…[have available] schedule information of a user, a panic-disorder model that is specific to the user, panic-disorder information, and a plurality of guidance information for each of a plurality of panic-disorder stages;
determine a current panic-disorder stage from among a plurality of panic-disorder stages of the user by entering user information into the panic-disorder model, wherein each of the plurality of panic-disorder stages are detected using at least partially different types of information received in real-time from [the available information],
receive an anticipated movement path and/or a destination acquired from the user schedule information, and output a first determination of a first panic-disorder stage when the anticipated movement path and/or the destination comes within a threshold proximity of a panic-inducing location stored in the panic-disorder information,
determining a number of the one or more external electronic devices that are recognized and unrecognized, based on the identifiers and a list of prestored device identifiers,
after outputting the first determination of the first panic-disorder stage, receiving the number of the one or more external electronic devices that are recognized and unrecognized and a real-time location detected by the communication circuitry, and real-time biometric information detected by the at least one sensor, and
output a second determination of a second panic-disorder stage subsequent to the first panic-disorder stage when the received real-time location indicates the threshold proximity of the stored panic-inducing location and the real-time biometric information meets a threshold biometric value as indicated by the panic-disorder information,
retrieve and output a pre-generated panic-guidance … from the plurality of guidance information corresponding to a current determined panic-disorder stage, and
update the panic-disorder model based at least on the real-time biometric information and the real-time location.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “determining a panic disorder state of a patient,” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Determining a panic disorder state of a patient” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). This is an example of a healthcare provider examining a patient and providing guidance based on that analysis. Further, this could be considered an example of a mental process, that of a person making an observation or judgement about the panic state of another person.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
memory;
at least one sensor;
communication circuitry; and
at least one processor operatively connected to the memory, the at least one sensor, and the communication circuitry, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by at least one processor, when executed, cause the electronic device to: [perform the abstract idea listed above];
scan via the communication circuitry, an immediate environment of the electronic device for identifiers of one or more external electronic devices;
a pre-generated panic-guidance screen.
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional element of scanning the immediate environment for device identifiers is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The remaining additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of scanning the immediate environment for device identifiers is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). It further amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d); see section (II) example i. “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”; see also Moturu [0039] identifying a geo-located local Wi-Fi hotspot during a phone call.).
Also already discussed above, the remaining additional elements, individually and in combination, merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the at least one sensor includes a biometric sensor for detecting the real-time biometric information, and a motion sensor for detecting motion of the user, and
wherein the real-time biometric information includes at least one of a pulse, a stress indicator, a respiration rate, blood pressure, a body temperature, and a sweat rate.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 2 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the panic-disorder information includes historical locations in which panic-attacks previously occurred,
wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the electronic device to determines the current panic-disorder stage based on whether the real-time location is within a designated distance from one or more historical locations included in the panic-disorder information.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 3 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the memory stores instructions cause the electronic device to: adjust, with respect to the at least one sensor, a time period for detecting the real-time biometric information and/or the real-time location.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 6 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the panic-disorder information includes historical locations in which panic-attacks previously occurred, and
wherein the memory stores instructions cause the electronic device to: obtain a destination location, and
when the destination location corresponds to a particular location included in the panic-disorder information, determine the current panic-disorder stage as the first panic-disorder stage, and output a first guide information corresponding to the first panic-disorder stage of the plurality of guidance information.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 7 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the memory stores instructions cause the electronic device to: store, in the memory, a function predesignated for automatic execution upon detection of a pre-stored emergency condition;
after detecting onset of a panic-attack based on the real-time biometric information of the user, determine whether the determined current panic-disorder stage satisfies the pre-stored emergency condition; and
when the determined current panic-disorder stage satisfies the pre-stored emergency condition, execute the stored function.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the memory stores instructions cause the electronic device to: adjust a panic-disorder weight, based on at least one of the detected real-time biometric information of the user and the detected real-time location, determine the current panic-disorder stage further according to the panic-disorder weight.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 9 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites the method of claim 9, wherein:
the processor is configured to: update the panic-disorder model, including changing an element related to the panic- disorder weight based on the detected real-time biometric information and/or the real-time location.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 10 is ineligible.
Claims 11-13 and 16-20 are parallel in nature to claims 1-3 and 6-10. Accordingly claims 11-13 and 16-21 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Dependent claim 21 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the instructions executable by at least one processor, when executed, cause the electronic device to further:
increase a sampling frequency of the at least one sensor when the first panic-disorder stage is higher than a predetermined one of the plurality of panic-disorder stages.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 21 is considered to be ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 October 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of an electronic device, including the recited elements in newly added claim 21 (see Applicant Remarks pages 10-11). This is not persuasive. The claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field as described in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Any technological elements recited in the claims are considered to be additional elements and do no more than merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element of scanning the immediate environment for device identifiers is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). This is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wild et al. (U.S. 2017/0319122) teaches a system and method analyzing and addressing stress levels in an individual based on their surroundings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684